Guard Dog

I did "Suicide as a response to terminal illness, or extreme physical pain and suffering is a whole different matter." Fair enough. I replaced "consider" with "commit" because you are correct, there is a huge gap between thinking it and seriously contemplating doing it or actually going through with it.

I have a venison backstrap I got from a guy at work who is an avid hunter. I'm going to slow smoke it using this recipe:

For all those who view suicide as a hurtful, selfish, or spiteful act I'd point out one thing. Ninety five percent of those who make that decision do so with a brain that is not functioning properly. Most of them do not consider the feelings of others at all becase they cannot, or worse, think they are doing others a favor by removing themselves. For my part I'd find it hard to cast aspersions on the motivations of someone whose reasoning is impaired or whose brain is not firing on all cylinders as it were.. In that situation I'm not sure suicide is even an affirmative act. Plus, there are a number of drugs I've heard advertised that actually induce suicidal thoughts as a side effect. Simbalta is one I believe. Now those that consider suicide after a sharp emotional pain like boyfriend/girlfriend breaking up, financial loss, divorve, etc. That is just foolish. There is no pain that copiuous amounts of alchohol cannot wash away. Suicide as a response to terminal illness, or exterme physical pain and suffering is a whole different matter. I must admit, if I were in a situation like that, it is an option I'd consider if there were literally no hope of recovery. Better a short quick end than a long agonizing one.

Excerpt: Rest of story here:http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/MindMoodN...6126&page=1 More: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081122/D94JV9P80.html As sad as this is, the people you blog with are pretty much strangers to you. Most of the stuff you read on forums is BS of one kind or another. If one of you guys started talking about suicide I'd have a hard time taking it seriously especially if that person was given to that kind of melodrama on a regular basis. Speaking for myself I think I'd be mildly supportive of such a person while ignoring them for the most part. Most of that shtick is a ploy for attention after all. Why reward it? But actually egging them on is a whole horse of another color. One other aspect comes to mind. A few months back we were all opining on a case where a particularly cruel myspace prank led to a teen girl committing suicide. Most of you saw some criminal culpability in the perpetrators of the hoax. How about in this case?

I said earlier Obama can pick who he pleases. I really have no issue with any pick he might make for his cabinet. And I absolutely believe Holder will and should be confirmed and he is as qualified to be AG as anyone. I was just trying to get Enoch to smell the coffee.

Interesting reading linked below. Apparently Holder did more than just pass a recommendation along, he hand carried it to Clinton, bypassing the US Attorneys in the process (a circumvention of DoJ rules). Additionally, Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, was previously Clinton's White House Counsel (a VERY busy job in those days). After the pardon was issued. Quinn hired both of Holder's assistants, at Holder's suggestion. There is at least one clear instance of influence peddling, minor though it is. I think you will agree the piece linked below sheds a little more light on that but it is true there is no evidence he was paid off. But apparently he took extraordinary pains to make it happen, one has to ask, what WAS in it for him? Oh I will freely admit I am openly contemptuous and suspicious of Democrats in general. My political experience with them in Florida left me thinking of that whole institution as an organized white collar crime family. I can't say I hold the Republican Party of Florida in much higher regard but at least I worked with and for a few who were true believers and patriots. But in the Rich case, there is so much money being thrown around it is hard not to believe Holder was not rewarded for his efforts in some way. It's not like the Clinton Admin was clean in any way. Need I bring up $4M in donations from China (via proxies who fled the country to avoid prosecution) followed by the AG's office declining to fully investigate Chinese weapons espionage? None of it proven true, but where there is smoke... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

I don't think it's hard to figure out the impetus at all. Marc Rich gave Bill Clinton $400,000 for his "library". Marc Rich gave Hillary Clinton's senate campaign $70,000. Marc Rich gave the DNC $1,000,000. Marc Rich gave the Clinton legal defense fund $10,000. All of it BEFORE receiving a pardon in the dark of the night on Clintons last day in office. Still having trouble figuring that one out? Rich bought a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars. Or more accurately Bill Clinton sold a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars and our new Attoney General Designate Eric Holder brokered the sale under the guise of doing his job. I'm quite certain some of that money found it's way into his pocket. Ah the good old days when the democrats ran the show, corruption was rampant, and I had my taxes jacked up to pay for it all. The good old days are here again.

Actually I have no issue with anyone he picks. It's his cabinet he can pick who he pleases. I just find it humorous that after using the word "change" in every other sentence during the campaign he is building an administration that is anything but. As far as Hillary is concerned he is a fool if he regards her as anything other than a rival. If he should become Jimmy Carter 2.0 there is no doubt she will be in a strong position to challenge him in 2012, and will do so gleefully I might add. No one will argue that Ted Kennedy cost Carter the election in 1980, but he sure did not help. If by chance she becomes the Senate Majority Leader she will be in a position to make headaches for him. If he nominates her for the SC it will give the Repubs a BIG weapon against him. By nominating her to the Sec State he can: a) Allow her to serve and use any failure on her part, real or perceived, to destroy her. b) Allow her to serve and prevent her from using any failure of his administration, real or perceived, against him. c) Use the vetting process to destroy her as a viable candidate by allowing the skeletons out of hers and Bills closet (via proxies of course). If they do that they will remove a rival and look like the good guys for even considering her to begin with. If I were advising Obama, I'd recommend that he nominate Richard Lugar for Sec Def. He is a liberal Republican and it will make Obama look bipartisan. His defense credentials are impeccable and it is an area Obama is weak in. Obama will damage the Repubs in the Senate by taking out a powerful and influential Senator and replacing him with a weaker and inexperienced one (Indiana's Governor is a Repub) and possibly putting that seat in play in 2010. It will make Obama's closest ally Evan Bayh the senior senator in Ind. Lugar may even accept since he will be a part of a very small minority is he stays where he is and the Republicans will not lose his seat if he accepts. That would be smart on Obama's part.

I'm glad Obama is so committed to change. Why with his election all these new faces are coming into power like a breath of fresh cool wind off the Potomac. So far we have 1)Rahm Emanuel who was a political adviser to Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton, a four year stint on the Board of Directors of Freddy Mac (his only "real" job), and a short stint in Congress and as the DNC chairman. In short a career political hack and beltway "insider". 2)Tom Daschle who aside from a very short time in the US Air Force as spent his entire career as a political aide, congressman and senator. He spent so little time in his home state of South Dakota that no one there recognized him. Finally they got sick of his weak kneed, hand wringing and gentle weeping and voted him out of office in 2004. Rather than get a real job he moved to DC full time and became a lobbyist for a number of BIG pharmaceutical companies. Now he (who represented the interests of BIG Pharm) will be the next Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department and in charge of "reforming" health care. 3)Eric Holder has spent his entire career in the Justice Dept in DC, was the Deputy Attorney General under Clinton, and is best known for convincing Clinton to pardon Marc Rich. If you forgot who he was that fine gentleman made millions illegally trading with Iran during the embargo by buying oil dirt cheap and selling to the US at a HUGE markup. He was finally indicted for tax fraud and fled the country rather than stand trial. Before his pardon Rich donated "large" amounts of money to the Democrat National Committee and Bill Clinton's Presidential Library. I wonder how much of that money ended up in Holders pocket? He is a career Washington insider and political hack with no qualms about peddling influence for money. 4) Hillary Clinton (possibly). Good grief, where do I even start? Wow, all this change coming to America. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. What is this hand basket we are in and where are we going?

Just got home, drinking a cup of two day old, microwaved coffee, getting ready to start working on my shed again. The dogs are running around like nuts. The bad news is I'm leaving on Monday for Birmingham, then Montgomery on Wednesday. Fortunately this will be my last road trip for a long time.

With no offense intended to taks or Hurlshot my experience has been that hard sciences teachers (particularly college professors) lacked the drive and mental toughness to survive in a highly competitive, even cut throat job market. Too many that I have know walked around thinking they were "owed" something. The cold truth in my job is that I am only as good as my last project and only secure so long as my current project is relevant and funded. There is an old saying in our profession: "Those who can, do. Those who can not, teach." There has never been a time when I would trade constant challenges in my work or the money I make for the security of teaching. Thats just me though. Hurlshot this applies much less to you since you are a professional teacher, trained to do just that. I suspect few who pursue the hard sciences do so with teaching in mind.

The Killer Angels by Jeff Sharra

My body of work in this field is extensive. My political career, business, and marriage all utterly collapsed within eight months. In that order too I might add. I was totally broke, facing foreclosure on my house, and involved in a furious and angry divorce with a woman (that I loved with ALL my heart) who said she wished I was dead more than once. For a time I started to agree with her. I got over it by staying drunk. Literally. I have almost no memory of 1998. But I can't say it did not help because after one phone conversation with her and her lawyer she dropped her attempt to take the house. I don't know what I said (in fact I have only the vaguest notion the conversation even took place) but evidently Jim Beam did more for my cause than my lawyer ever did. So, take my advice, and the advice of your fellow Canadian, David Allen Coe, and try to "drink Canada dry". At least until you feel better.

This truely sucks. Hopefully a few weeks on Rymadril and she will be fine. One of mine just turned 13. It has done wonders for his arthritis. I went on a Riverboat casino last night with some friends from work. I won almost $600 playing Blackjack. I decided I'm going to just spend it on something foolish. Haven't decided what yet.

Palin stories were a hoax All those stories about Palin not knowing Africa was a continent? They were a hoax. They were created by an fake internet blog used by a filmmaker to create buzz about a film project. And MSNBC and the New York Times all printed it as news. This is just like the bogus story they did about GWBs military service that was fabricated by a John Kerry operative and CBS ran as news in 2004. The "mainstream" media is so biased, and they so much want these negative stories about candidates they hate to be true they just run them with no vetting or verification. So now they retract quietly what they shouted out loudly. A number of posters on this very board follow the same thought process now that I think about it.

Congrats! Is the house new or did you by from an owner?

I'll see to that personally.

He did not cut much. In fact he raised income taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes more than any other President in history (I expect all those marks are about to be eclipsed by Obama). But there were some important tax benefits we can thank him (and the Republican 101st Congress for) including the Lifetime Learning Credit which provides a tax credit for college tuition expenses for working adults, and a number of tax benefits for small businesses. What Clinton did manage to accomplish (after the 1994 elections I would point out) is cut almost $300 Billion in federal spending. He also was at least partially responsible for eliminating some 200,000 unnecessary federal jobs. Like I said, from 1995 to 2000 in terms of administration policy he was closer the being a Republican than Bush has been at times. Of course that is overlooking the corruption, scandals, people dropping dead left and right, his inability to control himself, and the endless hit parade of liberty hating authoritarian judges he foisted on us.

After spending a long day crunching code I don't see how Josh goes home and fiddles with the toolset. When I get off work I do things that are to total opposite of what I do at work.

As batty as it sounds there may be some truth to it. It depends on how Arnold's chances of reelection are looking. As I have said here often enough, politics is a pragmatists game.

I think yes so far a consoles are concerned. I think the majority of console gamers (50-60%) are under 18 and still living with parents. As a rule they depend on the parents for the money to buy games. If money is tight for families there will be a reduction in money available for vices and consequently a down turn in discretionary purchases like games. College students are no more or less broke than they ever are and they always find a way to buy games. PC games probably will not be affected but they represent a pretty small part of the gaming market these days.

I don't know if you or Mr. Insomniac had seen this: http://www.planescapetrilogy.com/ I got all excited over CODI too an nothing came of it. So I try not to get excited over this to avoid that heartbreak again.

The Neoconservatives are a subset of the Social Conservative faction. Once Bush leaves office they are most likely to fade into the night. They have no other champions. All those candidates I mentioned are from the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian bent. And I would not be so quick to dismiss social conservative thought. I would point out that now 30 of 50 states have passed laws banning gay marriage via ballot initiative and none of the votes have been close. You need to understand something else about Americans, we are a generous and gregarious people but we also have a strong isolationist streak and if Obama starts talking about globalization most Americans will see that as surrendering our sovereignty as a nation. Nothing and I do mean NOTHING will put the Republicans back in power faster. I believe the next 4-6 years will lead to an ascendancy of the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian factions in the party and they will be much less inclined to suffer an economic moderate like Snowe, but social moderates like Specter will do fine. You cannot out-democrat the democrats. So they should not even try. The truth is, something has to give. The schools of political thought (liberal and conservative) have far more in contention than they have in common now. And the very culture of the US is beginning to realign by region. Look at all the electoral maps since 1996 and you cannot help but see it. The day may come when Americans realize that the people in California have no common culture or politics with the people from Alabama. Or the folks in Texas no longer consider themselves the countrymen of New Yorkers. The day that happens will be the beginning of the end of the US. And that will be a sad day indeed.

No you are right. I say pit because the party is leaderless at the moment. There is no Reagan to unify them as he did in 1977, no Gingrich like in 1992. It's fractured and falling to infighting much the way it did after Goldwater lost. It does not mean they will not get their act together but there is precious little time to do it.